Recent Posts

While Android has become the smartphone platform with the largest
installed base, its future in that position is not guaranteed and
it is seeing competition from a contender many had considered
also-ran: Microsoft.

Signaling: “We’re not sure Android is a critical asset”

Android has had a fantastic run over the last couple of years and
was positioned as the best alternative to Apple’s ambitions in
the space, which makes recent comments by Google’s new leader
somewhat disconcerting.

During this week’s proceedings surrounding Oracle’s lawsuit
against Google over use of Java code in Android, Larry Page made
a very curious remark: he said he wasn’t sure that Android was a critical asset to Google and saw it
as mainly a vehicle to get Google products to run on mobile
devices. This was an odd bit of signaling as it seemed to
imply that support for Android as a platform is far from
guaranteed. As a developer, this could be a cause for substantial
concern: if I develop for Android today, what kind of guarantees
do I have that the OS will still be supported tomorrow.

The coming OS war

By contrast, Apple appears to be going all in on iOS, even going
as far as bringing iOS features into its traditional computer
business. Looking at Apple’s future roadmap, it seems
increasingly clear that the company intends to merge iOS and OSX so the same OS runs on all
the products it offers and the company is investing heavily on
making that merger a reality. Along the way, they are sending a
clear signal that iOS is Apple’s platform for the future and a
key part of their business.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has always seen its Windows operating system
as one of the pillars of its business. With the release of
Windows Phone 7, Microsoft made it very clear that the operating
system they were selling in that space was an important one for
them and one that was targeted solely at phones. This allowed
them to focus the operating system for a specific kind of use,
with a different operating system being available for tablets
(the disastrously named Windows RNT). The radical new Metro UI
interface they brought to their phones is also slated to make it
into desktop version of their flagship operating system as well
as into the Xbox interface. This points to Microsoft sharing
Apple’s view that a single integrated experience between all
operating systems they offer is where the future is.

This clearly sets up the mobile landscape for a repeat of the
desktop OS wars of the 1980s/1990s with a key difference. This
time, there are two strong players looking to leverage
their position on one end of the spectrum to get a larger slice
of the overall pie: Apple will leverage its success in the mobile
world to help increase the footprint of its computer offering
while Microsoft will come at it in the reverse direction, trying
to leverage its desktop footprint to get at the mobile market.

You’re either all in or you’re out

Apple and Microsoft are going all in. Apple will continue to
succeed, having developed a fairly strong head start. Meanwhile,
Microsoft has tempted others into joining its coalition. On the
device end, Nokia has gone all in on the Windows platform,
staking its future on its success. The Finnish company know what
the mobile game is, as it once was the leader in the space, and
now has to prove that its strategy of going all-in with an
operating system many thought of as an also-ran will be
successful. In a way, the Microsoft Nokia partnership can work as
a reminder of the Microsoft Intel partnership of the past, with
Microsoft providing software and a partner providing hardware.

Apple’s own Steve Jobs has long seen the world as one where
hardware and software practice ought to be integrated along a
single stack: his view was always that Apple should produce both
the software and hardware to define the complete experience. Over
the last year, Microsoft has worked hard with Nokia to develop
what amounts to a tight integration with a preferred partner.
With few other companies betting the farm on Microsoft’s new OS,
this allowed the two partners to stay focused on making the
partnership work. Microsoft has also made it clear in its
integration guidelines that the user experience (ie. how user
interact with their operating system) was something Microsoft
controlled, not the hardware manufacturer.

By contrast, Android is now spread across anywhere between a
dozen and half a dozen manufacturers, each with a slightly
different look and feel. Pick up an Android phone from HTC,
Motorola, or Samsung and you end up with experiences that are
similar but also not completely alike. In its attempt at
domination, Google has focused on the guts of the software but
not on how individuals work with it. As a result, Android is the
type of operating systems engineers love but the general public
tolerates. Meanwhile, the inconsistent upgrade cycles from device
to device has creating an environment where there are more
Android devices but also one where there are more flavors of
Android out there, making it difficult for developers to manage.

For example, look at the Android phone of a non-technical person:
most likely, the phone comes with the stock apps, and whatever
other apps have been downloaded are probably not been updated in
a while (a quick way to evaluate that is by launching Google Play
(an unfortunate name in itself as it seems to focus on apps that
cannot possibly be about business); in most cases, people will be
ask to agree to the terms of services because they haven’t really
launched what used to be called the Market since they initially
got their phones. Complicating things even further, Google has
now acquired Motorola, which may mean the company is going to
produce its own phones but also unsettles its hardware partners
as they may now found themselves in a situation where they have
to compete with their own software providers.

The pricing of Nokia’s Windows Phones is also interesting, with
devices that are about $100 cheaper than their competitors in the
space: the market they’re going after is not the more
gadget-centric crowd but rather the mainstream that has heard of
smartphones but not yet made the jump (and that mainstream
represents about 60% of all phone users right now). A lot of
those users may go for an iPhone because of its elegance or might
go for a Windows phone because of its price. This leaves Android
devices in the odd situation of neither being the best devices
from a user experience standpoint nor being the value devices
from a price one.

So without a strong marketing push by partners and a value
proposition that is hard to figure, what to make of Android? That
question is one that may hobble future sales for devices from the
company.

“Developers, developers, developers”

One thing Microsoft understand more than most is that the future
of any platform is contingent on developers supporting it. In
fact, the company’s CEO scream about developers has
become its own meme. Apple, on the other side, has long
managed its developers relations through it annual developers’
conference and related online center. The two companies listen to
input from their development community and respond by bring
forward features that help those developers succeed.

By comparison, Google is a company that sees itself as developer
led and thus does not feel it needs to take outside input.
Instead, it queries its internal people and based on that brings
what it feels is best for the development community. This has led
to a decrease in the interest developers have in the
platform. That decrease could spell trouble in the future.

So if you’re a developer, what should you do? First, the obvious
thing is to start developing for iOS. Start with the iPhone and
go to the iPad. But once you’re done, take a very serious look at
the Windows Phone. It may be a smaller market today but I would
bet the future of apps rolling out on Windows Phone is brighter
than that of similar apps rolling out on Android